4 ms·

An interesting but scientifically useless account. Psychiatry and psychology will become useful to science only when such stories are validated by an effort to

by lutusp 13y ago

An interesting but scientifically useless account. Psychiatry and psychology will become useful to science only when such stories are validated by an effort to connect effects with causes -- to try to explain what has only been described. To date, these fields have gotten by with descriptions of things they cannot explain. Once explanations are proposed, they can be validated or falsified using empirical evidence, but until that happens, it's not science, it's anecdote. Interestingly, the director of the NIMH has recently taken the same position, ruling that that DSM (psychiatry and psychology's "bible") can no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Quote: "... each edition [of the DSM] has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."

chimeracoder 13y ago
To expand upon your point, biology lucked out with Carl Linnaeus. It so happened that Linnaeus's methods of classifying and naming biological organisms happened to correspond very well to other scientifically relevant concepts (genetics, etc.)[0]. We have no similar guarantee that the same applies to classifications of behaviors. That said - and let me qualify this by saying I have many complaints with the DSM (particularly the DSM V) - the fact that the DSM classifications may not be helpful for research purposes does not mean that they are not helpful for clinical treatment. Clinicians who use it properly (a big caveat) use it to ensure that they are all using a common vocabulary, though with an understanding that the vocabulary is imperfect. This is why I get very frustrated when I see online discussions about mental disorders devolve into recitations of the DSM diagnostic criteria as if they were checklists. The DSM provides a convenient library, but the clinician still has to identify which portions are relevant and which are not, and to write the "code" that glues those relevant portions together. [0] Not that they weren't without fault, but they were an important early effort that has been revised in modern day.
- neurotech1 13y ago
  I agree with your comments about the DSM. One of my biggest frustrations is that except for a subset of neuropsychologists, they have very poor understanding of how neurophysiology correlates with various "diagnosis".
- mtdewcmu 13y ago
  Biology was far luckier in general, in that biology is a much better subject for scientific inquiry than psychology. Good science has to work very hard to keep subjectivity and bias at bay; they are constantly and insidiously trying to creep in, and they are poison. Psychologists have the unlucky job of trying to scientifically study subjectivity and bias itself. I don't think it's really possible to make psychology a rigorous science; the subject may simply be out of reach.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > We have no similar guarantee that the same applies to classifications of behaviors. Not yet, anyway. In the long term, there's hope that neuroscience will uncover root causes in genetics and other objective disciplines, thus moving beyond psychology entirely. This is a future goal, not at all something just around the corner. On the other hand, psychology has been trying to crack this egg since before the Civil War and has gotten nowhere. Notice that, when President Obama launched his new research program, he called it the "brain initiative", not the "mind initiative". This was a not-so-subtle signal that psychology is no longer looked on as the cutting edge of mental research. > That said - and let me qualify this by saying I have many complaints with the DSM (particularly the DSM V) - the fact that the DSM classifications may not be helpful for research purposes does not mean that they are not helpful for clinical treatment. That's true, but clinical treatment can't go anywhere without knowing causes, which the DSM -- and psychiatry and psychology -- don't address. This issue is discussed in the NIMH link I provided in my prior post, where the NIMH director provides much detail on the problems caused by addressing only symptoms, not causes. > The DSM provides a convenient library, but the clinician still has to identify which portions are relevant and which are not, and to write the "code" that glues those relevant portions together. But whenever a clinician goes beyond the DSM, s/he enters uncharted territory. This subjective territory led Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, to say, "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- burntsushi 13y ago
  Umm. > Psychiatry and psychology will become useful to science So no, he didn't say they were useless. Why can't he lodge a criticism without throwing everything else out? Read the article he linked to. It's not crazy---they're just trying to be better.
- philwelch 13y ago
  Psychiatry and psychology have probably taken lives as well.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    So has the general medical profession.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      So has lightning, raindrops, and sunshine
- analog31 13y ago
  If you recognize engineering as the "clinical" side of science, then science has saved lives. And cost lives too, of course.
hristov 13y ago
Not true at all. Observation is very legitimate and valid scientific pursuit. We will not be able to explain the human brain for a long time but that does not mean we should not make observations about how it behaves and find repeating patterns of behavior. One parallel is that humans were able to observe and accurately predict the movement of the stars before they ever knew what stars were. In fact humans were able to use stars for navigation long before anyone had the slightest idea of the actual physical nature of a star, or could offer any plausible explanation as to why a star moves a certain way. Furthermore, observations can be tested and supported by empirical evidence. You can for example run brain scans for criminals and see if the psychopath brain pattern has higher incidence among prison populations (it definitely does). Of course you cannot perform the types of precise tests on humans one performs with atoms, but psychology there are scientific tests and studies you can do.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Observation is very legitimate and valid scientific pursuit. We will not be able to explain the human brain for a long time but that does not mean we should not make observations about how it behaves and find repeating patterns of behavior. All right, let's submit your idea to a scientific thought experiment -- let's imagine we can do without any attempt to explain an observation, and call it science. Let's say I'm a doctor who believes I have cured the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over my patients until they get better. The treatment sometimes takes a week, but it always works. It's repeatable and reliable. Since psychologists don't have to explain their results, I don't have to either. So -- where's my Nobel Prize? Second example. I go outside and see little points of light in the night sky. I describe this -- I write a paper and say the night sky is filled with little points of light. Another person, who calls himself a scientist, says those points of light are actually distant thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, a claim that can be tested and potentially falsified. Is my observation science, or is his theory science? (Observation by itself is not science -- empirically testable, falsifiable theories are required.) > Furthermore, observations can be tested and supported by empirical evidence. Not in mind studies. The mind is not accessible to empirical observation. The brain is, the mind is not. This issue is separate from the issue of whether observation without explanation is science. > Of course you cannot perform the types of precise tests on humans one performs with atoms, but psychology there are scientific tests and studies you can do. False. Psychology is not science unless and until empirical, falsifiable explanations are proposed and then tested, regardless of how many white lab coats and clipboards are on display. Let's say I'm an astrologer and I'm really annoyed that people don't think my field is a science. So I hire a bunch of scientists who perform statistical studies, for example, how many people are Geminis and how many are Tauruses -- perfectly scientific, perfectly reliable. By doing this, have I made astrology a science? Why not? Some people claim this works for psychology, so why not for astrology too?

by lutusp 13y ago

chimeracoder 13y ago

To expand upon your point, biology lucked out with Carl Linnaeus. It so happened that Linnaeus's methods of classifying and naming biological organisms happened to correspond very well to other scientifically relevant concepts (genetics, etc.)[0]. We have no similar guarantee that the same applies to classifications of behaviors. That said - and let me qualify this by saying I have many complaints with the DSM (particularly the DSM V) - the fact that the DSM classifications may not be helpful for research purposes does not mean that they are not helpful for clinical treatment. Clinicians who use it properly (a big caveat) use it to ensure that they are all using a common vocabulary, though with an understanding that the vocabulary is imperfect. This is why I get very frustrated when I see online discussions about mental disorders devolve into recitations of the DSM diagnostic criteria as if they were checklists. The DSM provides a convenient library, but the clinician still has to identify which portions are relevant and which are not, and to write the "code" that glues those relevant portions together. [0] Not that they weren't without fault, but they were an important early effort that has been revised in modern day.

neurotech1 13y ago
I agree with your comments about the DSM. One of my biggest frustrations is that except for a subset of neuropsychologists, they have very poor understanding of how neurophysiology correlates with various "diagnosis".
mtdewcmu 13y ago
Biology was far luckier in general, in that biology is a much better subject for scientific inquiry than psychology. Good science has to work very hard to keep subjectivity and bias at bay; they are constantly and insidiously trying to creep in, and they are poison. Psychologists have the unlucky job of trying to scientifically study subjectivity and bias itself. I don't think it's really possible to make psychology a rigorous science; the subject may simply be out of reach.
lutusp 13y ago
> We have no similar guarantee that the same applies to classifications of behaviors. Not yet, anyway. In the long term, there's hope that neuroscience will uncover root causes in genetics and other objective disciplines, thus moving beyond psychology entirely. This is a future goal, not at all something just around the corner. On the other hand, psychology has been trying to crack this egg since before the Civil War and has gotten nowhere. Notice that, when President Obama launched his new research program, he called it the "brain initiative", not the "mind initiative". This was a not-so-subtle signal that psychology is no longer looked on as the cutting edge of mental research. > That said - and let me qualify this by saying I have many complaints with the DSM (particularly the DSM V) - the fact that the DSM classifications may not be helpful for research purposes does not mean that they are not helpful for clinical treatment. That's true, but clinical treatment can't go anywhere without knowing causes, which the DSM -- and psychiatry and psychology -- don't address. This issue is discussed in the NIMH link I provided in my prior post, where the NIMH director provides much detail on the problems caused by addressing only symptoms, not causes. > The DSM provides a convenient library, but the clinician still has to identify which portions are relevant and which are not, and to write the "code" that glues those relevant portions together. But whenever a clinician goes beyond the DSM, s/he enters uncharted territory. This subjective territory led Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, to say, "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

burntsushi 13y ago
Umm. > Psychiatry and psychology will become useful to science So no, he didn't say they were useless. Why can't he lodge a criticism without throwing everything else out? Read the article he linked to. It's not crazy---they're just trying to be better.
philwelch 13y ago
Psychiatry and psychology have probably taken lives as well.
- coldtea 13y ago
  So has the general medical profession.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    So has lightning, raindrops, and sunshine
analog31 13y ago
If you recognize engineering as the "clinical" side of science, then science has saved lives. And cost lives too, of course.

hristov 13y ago

Not true at all. Observation is very legitimate and valid scientific pursuit. We will not be able to explain the human brain for a long time but that does not mean we should not make observations about how it behaves and find repeating patterns of behavior. One parallel is that humans were able to observe and accurately predict the movement of the stars before they ever knew what stars were. In fact humans were able to use stars for navigation long before anyone had the slightest idea of the actual physical nature of a star, or could offer any plausible explanation as to why a star moves a certain way. Furthermore, observations can be tested and supported by empirical evidence. You can for example run brain scans for criminals and see if the psychopath brain pattern has higher incidence among prison populations (it definitely does). Of course you cannot perform the types of precise tests on humans one performs with atoms, but psychology there are scientific tests and studies you can do.

lutusp 13y ago
> Observation is very legitimate and valid scientific pursuit. We will not be able to explain the human brain for a long time but that does not mean we should not make observations about how it behaves and find repeating patterns of behavior. All right, let's submit your idea to a scientific thought experiment -- let's imagine we can do without any attempt to explain an observation, and call it science. Let's say I'm a doctor who believes I have cured the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over my patients until they get better. The treatment sometimes takes a week, but it always works. It's repeatable and reliable. Since psychologists don't have to explain their results, I don't have to either. So -- where's my Nobel Prize? Second example. I go outside and see little points of light in the night sky. I describe this -- I write a paper and say the night sky is filled with little points of light. Another person, who calls himself a scientist, says those points of light are actually distant thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, a claim that can be tested and potentially falsified. Is my observation science, or is his theory science? (Observation by itself is not science -- empirically testable, falsifiable theories are required.) > Furthermore, observations can be tested and supported by empirical evidence. Not in mind studies. The mind is not accessible to empirical observation. The brain is, the mind is not. This issue is separate from the issue of whether observation without explanation is science. > Of course you cannot perform the types of precise tests on humans one performs with atoms, but psychology there are scientific tests and studies you can do. False. Psychology is not science unless and until empirical, falsifiable explanations are proposed and then tested, regardless of how many white lab coats and clipboards are on display. Let's say I'm an astrologer and I'm really annoyed that people don't think my field is a science. So I hire a bunch of scientists who perform statistical studies, for example, how many people are Geminis and how many are Tauruses -- perfectly scientific, perfectly reliable. By doing this, have I made astrology a science? Why not? Some people claim this works for psychology, so why not for astrology too?